Nope, I am not going to argue about something as subjective as "fairness". I can make other arguments in favor of it, such as substainability arguments of institionalised wealth and poverty.

If institutionalised wealth and poverty aren't sustainable (just guessing that might be your argument), then what will occur when they fail to endure? What comes next?

I'm just asking because, as far as I can tell, entrenched wealth and poverty have virtually always been with us.

Was there some distant-past paradise of inherent equality that I'm unaware of? Is there, perhaps, some prospect of a future version of this blessed realm? Or will present-day inequalities simply be succeeded by future ones? That last would be my assumption, but I'd like to hear any opposing point of view--and the logic upon which it is based.

His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Join Date

Mar 2006

Posts

11,295

--

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

If institutionalised wealth and poverty aren't sustainable (just guessing that might be your argument), then what will occur when they fail to endure? What comes next?

I'm just asking because, as far as I can tell, entrenched wealth and poverty have virtually always been with us.

Was there some distant-past paradise of inherent equality that I'm unaware of? Is there, perhaps, some prospect of a future version of this blessed realm? Or will present-day inequalities simply be succeeded by future ones? That last would be my assumption, but I'd like to hear any opposing point of view--and the logic upon which it is based.

If institutionalised wealth and poverty aren't sustainable (just guessing that might be your argument), then what will occur when they fail to endure? What comes next?

Why of course the fall of empires.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

I'm just asking because, as far as I can tell, entrenched wealth and poverty have virtually always been with us.

Yes it has been and always will be. The various degrees of magnitude are cyclic.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

Was there some distant-past paradise of inherent equality that I'm unaware of?

Nope, not at all. With maybe the exception being pre-agrarian society where pretty much everyone had nothing.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

Is there, perhaps, some prospect of a future version of this blessed realm? Or will present-day inequalities simply be succeeded by future ones?

Nope, however there comes a tipping point for the entrenched wealth. This tipping point literally causes the collapse of the society as its not sustainable to have a few people own everything. We saw it in Rome, the Mayans, and others.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

That last would be my assumption, but I'd like to hear any opposing point of view--and the logic upon which it is based.

Unfortunately you won't get one from me. The golden rule is the one with the gold makes the rules. They tend to make the rules so that they can get more gold. Thus have more power to make the rules. At some point though you see the word revolution come into the mix. I don't think we are close to that point yet. But as the 1% begin to own more and more well if history is any indication.

His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Join Date

Mar 2006

Posts

11,295

1

Originally Posted by goodlun

Why of course the fall of empires.

Yes it has been and always will be. The various degrees of magnitude are cyclic.

Nope, not at all. With maybe the exception being pre-agrarian society where pretty much everyone had nothing.

Nope, however there comes a tipping point for the entrenched wealth. This tipping point literally causes the collapse of the society as its not sustainable to have a few people own everything. We saw it in Rome, the Mayans, and others.

Unfortunately you won't get one from me. The golden rule is the one with the gold makes the rules. They tend to make the rules so that they can get more gold. Thus have more power to make the rules. At some point though you see the word revolution come into the mix. I don't think we are close to that point yet. But as the 1% begin to own more and more well if history is any indication.

Entrenched wealth??? Pffft. It's damn near mathematically impossible to have long term entrenched wealth in the United States without someone who is smart enough and skilled enough to keep generating revenue. You should study estate taxation.

Even a billion dollar estate can be reduced to pennies in a few generations. You start with a **** pile of money. You die and the government takes a gigantic chunk of it. The remainder is split between say, four surviving children. They die. The government takes a gigantic chunk of each of their estates. Their, let's say 10 surviving children get the remainder. They die. The government gets a gigantic chunk of each estate. You see where I'm going with this?

Now, it's a valid assumption that these wealthy heirs are still in a strong position to leverage their money to continue to grow their fortunes, but most people are stupid and will squander it like MC Hammer. But two things here - most people aren't billionaires. Most of the people who you think have entrenched wealth will have their estates reduced to zero before their grandchildren die. Secondly, the government will leech more from these estates than you and 1,000 of your closest liberal buddies will ever put into the system that you cherish so dearly. Entrenched wealth in the United States is virtually a myth.

Yes it has been and always will be. The various degrees of magnitude are cyclic.

...

Nope, however there comes a tipping point for the entrenched wealth. This tipping point literally causes the collapse of the society as its not sustainable to have a few people own everything. We saw it in Rome, the Mayans, and others.

Nope, however there comes a tipping point for the entrenched wealth. This tipping point literally causes the collapse of the society as its not sustainable to have a few people own everything. We saw it in Rome, the Mayans, and others

With respect to Mayan civilization, I always thought it was a mystery why they disappeared; though Wiki offers several possible explanations (my bet is the drought thing, similar to what is now the prevailing theory concerning the Nazca), yours is not included - can you source this?

I'm just asking because, as far as I can tell, entrenched wealth and poverty have virtually always been with us.

Well probably since we developed division of labor.

The new thing about capitalism is the role unemployment plays in it. In feudalism even slaves get feed because someone owns them and they have an interest in keeping them alive, providing a form of social security. Peasants, although poor, had the means to keep them-self alive through their labor because they had a bit of land. Unemployment in the capitalist sense did no really exist.

On the other hand in capitalism unemployment plays a vital role for the economy. Why is that so? First imagine everyone has work. You have a great business idea, got the money everything, need workers? Oh ****. Yeah you can try to steal some from the competition but that is costly and takes time. So unemployment works as a buffer for the economy. Also it keeps the wages down and motivates the workers (fear of unemployment).

So one who wants capitalism also wants the modern welfare state. Someone needs to keep the unemployed from starving.

The point is, while poverty has existed in most societies, there also was social security.

Social security is what is important, more important than the wealth gap. Even if you make good money for a while, when you can loose your job and your house every day out of the blue it ain‚Äôt worth that much.

Shut the **** up. You have 0 concept of historical social well being.
Capalisim has and still does provide more social well being for the poor than any other goods and labor distrubtion system. More importantly it keeps the largest portion of a given population out of poverty than any other system.

In feudalism even slaves get feed because someone owns them and they have an interest in keeping them alive, providing a form of social security. Peasants, although poor, had the means to keep them-self alive through their labor because they had a bit of land.